Department of Commerce Launches Section 232 Investigation of Robotics and Industrial Machinery: Public Comment Period Now Open

According to the Federal Register notice (see here), the investigation was initiated on September 2. As with other Section 232 investigations, if BIS determines that imports of “robotics and industrial machinery,” and/or their parts and components, “threaten to impair” US national security, the president may impose tariffs, quotas, license fees, or other import restrictions as appropriate. Before doing so, however, there is a public comment process that allows interested parties to submit comments, advocating either in favor of or against a national security threat finding.

What Is Included in This Investigation

This investigation covers imports of “robotics and industrial machinery” and their parts and components. According to Commerce, “robotics and industrial machinery” includes, among other things, robots and programmable, computer-controlled mechanical systems. This investigation is very broad. Commerce provided a few examples, which include computer numerical control machining centers, turning and milling machines, grinding and deburring equipment, and industrial stamping and pressing machines. It also includes automatic tool changers, jigs and fixtures, and machine tools for cutting, welding, and handling work pieces. Application-specific specialty metalworking equipment used to treat, form, or cut metal, such as autoclaves and industrial ovens, metal finishing and treatment equipment, electrical discharge machining machinery, and laser and water-cutting tools and machinery is also included.

The scope of this investigation does not include unmanned aircraft systems, which are covered by a different section 232 investigation.

Public Comment Period Open Until October 17

Commerce is seeking public comments on information on robotics and industrial machinery regarding the following.

1. The current, projected, and optimal demand for robotics and industrial machinery and their parts and components in the United States.

2. The extent to which domestic production of robotics and industrial machinery, and their parts and components, can meet domestic demand.

3. The role of foreign supply chains, particularly of major exporters, in meeting United States demand for robotics and industrial machinery and their parts and components.

4. The concentration of US imports of robotics and industrial machinery and their parts and components from a small number of suppliers or foreign nations, and the associated risks.

5. The impact of foreign government subsidies and predatory trade practices on the competitiveness of the robotics and industrial machinery, and their parts and components, in the United States.

6. The economic impact of artificially suppressed prices of robotics and industrial machinery, and their parts and components, due to foreign unfair trade practices and state-sponsored overproduction.

7. The potential for export restrictions by foreign nations, including the ability of foreign nations to weaponize their control over supplies of robotics and industrial machinery and their parts and components.

8. The feasibility of increasing domestic capacity for robotics and industrial machinery and their parts and components to reduce import reliance.

9. The impact of current trade policies on domestic production of robotics and industrial machinery, and their parts and components, and whether additional measures, including tariffs or quotas, are necessary to protect national security.

10. The impact of the use or lack of use of robotics and industrial machinery on US manufacturing employment.

11. The potential for foreign control or exploitation of the robotics and industrial machinery supply chain.

12. The ability of foreign persons to weaponize the capabilities or attributes of foreign-built robotics and industrial machinery and their parts or components.

13. The future role of robotics and industrial machinery in the production of items essential to national security or in activities related to national security.

14. Any other relevant factors.

Interested parties (e.g., US manufacturers, US importers, foreign producers, and exporters, etc.) will have until October 17 to submit their comments.

Timeline of the Section 232 Investigation 

As with all Section 232 investigations, the Secretary of Commerce must deliver a comprehensive report determining whether the targeted product is being imported “in certain quantities or under such circumstances” to impair the national security of the United States. This report, and any recommended measures, must be delivered to the president within 270 days of the initiation of the investigation. If Commerce determines in the affirmative, the president has 90 days to decide whether to concur and, if so, determine what actions should be taken to address the impact of the subject imports. These actions could include the imposition of tariffs or quotas without any limits on their duration.

Based on the timeline of other investigations, it is very likely that Commerce and the president will make a determination well before the 360 days typically associated with Section 232 investigations.

Other Section 232 Actions

This action marks the 12th Section 232 investigation initiated under the Trump Administration this year. Of the 12, only the March investigations into copper and timber and lumber have concluded. See below for an updated account of ongoing Section 232 investigations.

Takeaways

• Interested parties (i.e., importers, downstream producers, domestic producers) that could be impacted by this investigation should consider participating in the public comment process, advocating for or against any restrictive trade measure. Affected parties should also consider other ways to advocate their position, including support from members of Congress.

• Under 232, the president has vast authority to impose tariffs and other import restrictions, as well as provide relief from those actions.

• The Trump Administration has leaned heavily on Section 232 to advance its trade policy objectives. Based on other investigations, tariffs or other forms of import restrictions may swiftly follow Commerce’s report.

• Companies should evaluate their exposure, develop comment strategies ahead of the October 17 deadline, and prepare for the possibility of trade restrictions.

Our ArentFox Schiff Customs & Import Compliance group has vast experience counseling clients on Section 232 actions and other import processes. Please contact the authors of this alert or any of our attorneys for additional guidance. 

Additional research and writing from Chloe Elbogen and Fernando Ramírez, project assistants in ArentFox Schiff’s Washington, DC, office.